í Assignments

Nowadays, digital media has overtaken in all forms on how things are done. From industrialized to digitalize, from freelance to e-lance. Ross states that crowdsourcing refers to a way in which knowledge is often collected and collaborative and how this has served to be used to contextualize the rise where users a often the one who are doing the work indirectly. It is seen that as mentioned by the author “ The crowd is not only smarter than trained employees, you don’t need to make social security contributions to take advantage of its wisdom or put up with wayward personalities of the creative on payroll”( 30). Obviously we encounter it everyday even if is not our desire. When we access websites such as Youtube and like the videos, when we like pictures on facebook and Instagram we are sometimes coming across the work of talented individuals who are photographers, reporters, and individuals the successful ones are quickly snatched up by the likes of gigantic corporations as mentioned before. Also another form of crowdsourcing is when individuals use hashtags. As Ross mentions big social media companies such as twitter, groupon, zynga, linkending and tumblr, these companies use a “ free, or token wage, labor is increasingly available though a variety of channels: crowdsourcing; the explosion of unpaid, near-obligatory internships in every white –collar sector”(24).

Angeline Henriquez

Digital Media and Society

Ross Definitions- “Feminization of Work”

In chapter 1 Ross dives into one aspect of the free-labor frenzy, internships, and how this has affected women in a disproportionate manner. Internships, Ross states, are “the fastest growing job category of recent years for a large slice of educated youth trying to gain entry into work places” (23). However, although individuals go to extreme measure to land and keep a white-collar internship, the chances of them getting a job out if it are slim. Ross compares it to “the equivalent of a lottery ticket”. The only real beneficiaries in this equation are the employers who make a profit of $2 billion dollars from the work employed by the interns. Ross then questions why, given the lack of transparency in white-collar internships, individuals are not running towards apprenticeships instead. Here is where it presents a conflict for women. Only “10% of registered apprentices are female” which results in women being allocated in 77% of unpaid internships, and thus affected disproportionately which is known among sociologists as the “feminization of labor” but Ross goes a step further in defining this term. He states that in this instance, the feminization of labor not only takes place because of the number of women in internships, but because of the lack of transparency and regulations that separate “task and contract” and “duty and opportunity”. This occurrence only promotes a communal mindset of self-exploitation as a rite of passage, and reinforces the blurry lines that underlie the unfairness in the freelance and salaried fields.

Marisa Chung
Hybrid Assignment 05
10/06/15

In this week’s reading, Ross explains the cheapened and discounted form of labor that affiliates with the rise of digital media by sharing many different examples throughout the chapter. One of the examples that stood out to me most was the white collar / no collar interns. I can personally relate to this because this is something I also experienced, as well as many people that I associate myself with. From my personal experience, I feel as though internships have become the new entry-level job that consists of the same responsibilities and basic experience, except it is only without one of the most important factors; without compensation or benefits. I absolutely understand that getting an internship is a great opportunity to learn and build experience, however I also think that unpaid internships requires as much hard work and effort as a real “job”. In addition, internships do not guarantee an individual with a job when the internship is finished. Therefore, I believe that it is extremely unfair for interns to work hard without getting paid for their work. Unfortunately, as Ross mentions in the chapter, Corporate America takes advantage of this system and gets a “$2 billion annual subsidy from internships alone”.

Ross also mentions that the financial profile of some companies are extremely high. According to Ross, Facebook alone took in an estimated $4.3 billion in revenue in 2011, and almost 1 billion of that was net profit. The firm only had a little more than 2,000 employees on payroll. And how do companies such a Facebook make a huge financial success? It is through the subscription base of Facebook’s half a billion users. (Us) Ross adds that the users are not consumers in any traditional sense of paying customers. They make their money by what we share, as well as from advertisers or behavior market vendors. The users become the “products being sold”. Everything has become business related which in many ways seems unfair. Facebook claims to be “free” but it really isn’t.

I’m fascinated in particular with Amazon’s Mechanical Turk system, a program that is a crowd-sourced marketplace for requesters and workers to bid on “tasks” otherwise known as piecemeal jobs that are not able to be completed by computers. Less exotic and more routinized, this program reduces those that bid on jobs or tasks to the very embodiment of alienated labor. Ross suggests that this and “other e-lance operations would not be thought of as remotely resembling temporary employees… leave no trace of their employment… [and function as] a discrete lump, or piece, or work that exists only for the duration of its fulfillment.” (27-28) These tasks yield not much more than cents to dollars per completed and accepted task per hour – which suggests that though this labor while in demand might also be something that someone performs as a supplement or when bored and using the web while at their other computer-based job (which is almost all jobs at this point.) E-lance (another terrible digital media portmanteau of electronic and freelance) labor, is not as attractive as it sounds. The lure of working as an e-lancer is the promise of self-determined workflow and that the only qualifications required are internet access and usage of the open source software is very appealing, but given the amount of work that one must perform in order make the time worth it, and that there is no guarantee of payment depending on the task hardly seems like all its cracked up to be. It sounds more like e-serfdom or the e equivalent of working in a nail salon (anybody read that NY Times investigative report this past spring?)

Ross also houses the model of the reality television show star as a participant in the volunteer or amateur economy, which he identifies as “a degraded labor sector.” (32) That this highly successful phenomenon emerged long before web 2.0 says more about the entertainment industry than it does about technological innovation. However social media is the perfect vehicle for an even cheaper and more rapidly deployable or accessible reality based entertainment industry to flourish. While Ross doesn’t explicitly name or make connections about particular apps (I’m thinking of Vine) its worth investigating the efficacy of how these user based networks and apps as they utilized by old media or corporate interest at verily no cost to generate viral content. For the average person wanting their 15 minutes of fame or in the case of Vine, 6 seconds, this technology could totally be used to catapult a career as a reality television personality. Youtube is another popular favorite – ever take note of the amount of page views or video plays certain personalities have garnered? What amount of unwaged labor did these people have to perform in order to rack up the hits? How base or humiliating must some content be in order to acquire the necessary amount of views that put a youtuber on the radar of a reality television production house? Subscriptions and followers don’t come cheap, and in many ways it appears that these venues function as no pay internships for aspiring reality television personalities.

When Ross uses the term “false consciousness” in the very last sentence on page 37, he is referring to a Marxist concept that has typically categorized those workers who do not subscribe to a Marxist ideology as being duped or brainwashed by the capitalist overlords. Essentially, it’s a way to enforce pressure on individuals to fall in line with Marxist or rather communist platforms, where the definition of the worker self is in agreement with the necessity for a communist or Marxist revolution against the capitalist system.

Ross begins this section by delving into what the commonly agreed upon (from Marx onward to present day) definitions of work or labor are, in a historic sense. To apply an equally outdated (and definitely intended as a pejorative) term to a subsection of the population that works but not in the traditionally (and rigidly) defined way that waged labor is historically classified as, exposes the limitations that Marxist applications for understanding the way labor has shifted in the digital age. By advocating for a more flexible analysis or perspective on the types of labor being performed in the present day (unwaged labor which is indeed more common across the board in many nations and across many derivations of individual identities of workers) Ross frees the subset of the workforce that might be considered superfluous or in denial about the exploitation of their own labor contributions. By flipping the last two sentences at the close of page 37, Ross is basically saying that perhaps these workers (the under-40’s contending with the mutable conditions and rapidly shifting age of neoliberal economic and cultural mores) are not as naïve or brainwashed as a traditional Marxist analysis of waged labor would suggest.

I liked this section because Ross applied an intersectional analysis of labor through raising the issue of the how these terms have hegemonically dominated ideas of what labor and work look like. When I hear the term unwaged labor I immediately think of several different models of workers that have never had access to the protections of a labor analysis, one that is based on the ideas and models developed out of the organizing of union card carrying cismale industrial workers. This group includes sex workers and undocumented workers; these folks are largely charged with having a false consciousness about their situations… as if agreeing to assume positions that are typically outside of the moral and often nationalistic concerns of society are inherently evil, wrong, or due to the misgivings of an individual. That line of thinking fails to put the onus of the conditions that created a space for this kind of labor to exist – the systems and structures of the capital and the state, these hierarchies are what drive people to participate in “illicit” labor, it’s basic survival of the fittest. (I might even include those who work other street economies – but most folks are going to have a hard time understanding the previous two categories I suggested.)

According to Ross Distributed labor is suggested as a way of describing the use of the Internet to mobilize the spare processing power of a widely dispersed crowd of discrete individuals. Distributed Labor, is categorized in two terms. First, it doesn’t necessarily refer to the old term in applied in the last decade when technology was not as advanced as it is today. Instead, distributed labor refers as the technology work-flow and work place that is known as the mobile office because it could be performed everywhere. The “privilege” of distributed labor is that it could be performed anywhere as long as there is a connection. According to Ross the ones to perform this type of task are the freelancers or e-lancers he categorized them. Obviously, distributed labor as the term refers, tasks are distributed in an organized manner according to the existing talent of micro-division but a lower cost. Meaning that the labor being done isn’t free of cost; the costs is a lot less than the traditional. But as long as there is a network connecting and the job is being performed and productive it does not matter. Distributed Labor, is seen everywhere, obviously when production can be performed at a lower cost by more individuals and be even more profitable it does not matter. Obviously, corporations benefit from individuals such as freelancers, and others who are skilled and have the ability to complete task according to their business needs.

Ross uses the example of television show contestants to explain that media’s use of exploiting the efforts of amateurs for little or no compensation is not a practice new, or limited to, new digital media. Old media television has used the premise of contests to avoid paying professional actors. These reality based television shows, whether they be cooking, singing, dancing, quiz, or “reality living” themed are thinly disguised 30-60 minute scripted commercials, the contestants unpaid except (perhaps a very small handful win a prize) the chance for notoriety for post-show ventures, similar to the “compensation of reputation” of online freelancers. This is not a recent development either, as TV game shows and other reality based shows like COPS with low production value but high revenue return have been around for decades.

Online, businesses do similar acts to entice amateurs to engage in work without compensation by similarly holding contests or making the efforts seem like fun, therefore giving the illusion that it is not “work.” It is more often that the laborer does not know or think of themselves as a laborer, engaging in the given task as a fun puzzle, a task designed to engage professionals when they are not at work, or is completed by an out-of-work professional engaging to keep their skills sharp. This is known as crowdsourcing and this type of distributed labor is cast out wide to many individuals by behind the scenes content hosts and data miners looking for wage-free production. The work is spread thin so that any one person’s efforts does not directly affect the outcome, nor does the laborer necessarily understand the planned outcome, though the unseen coordinating manager does and uses many pieces to make a full finished product, the results of crowding together the small efforts of many individuals

These concepts of giving labor without realizing it can be contrasted with the devices on which making these online efforts so easy. The production of the electronic devices, from phones to tablets, are made in China by people who are also being exploited and manipulated into working for a pittance. These all inclusive factories have eliminated competition by completing all aspects of production and have moved to the most rural areas of the country so that there are no other jobs available or competition for better working conditions. Similar to freelancers of the creative sector given the opportunity to work for free or not work at all, at least the freelancers can try to work to make a name for themselves, something the electronics factory workers of China do not have the option to do.

In his definition of feminization of labor, Ross states women are inherently more likely to take on more work in the white-collar, no-collar, unpaid internship role because the around the clock efforts of these jobs are similar to the work schedule of a housewife. A housewife’s duties generally have no distinction between keeping home (working) and being at home (not working). As the duties of keeping home do not hold the traditional hours of an office, a housewife’s tasks take place both day and night intermingled with every day’s pleasures. So therefore, in attempt to explain feminization of labor, Ross implies that by simply being women they are attuned and inclined to the work-ethic of having no clear distinction between work time and leisure time, compared to their male counterparts. While I personally find this connection to be assumptious and furthering the gendered divide, there is no denying that the majority (77% according to Ross’s research) of unpaid internships are held by women in which their efforts exceed the formal model of a 5-day, 40 hour work week. Perhaps it would be better to examine the reasoning behind the gendered imbalance by interpreting women’s extra efforts in the workplace as striving to disprove discriminating assumptions of being the inferior sex, working harder than male counterparts to dispel gendered inequality but consequently creating a new gendered assumption that women are more readily open to being exploited in their effort and time in the new mobile labor sector.

In addition to the feminization of the creative industries, like those in tech and corporate American unpaid internships, another feminization of labor is taking place in the physical workforces that produce the electronic devices for upon which creative industries utilize. Ross explains that these factories that create devices in countries like China are employed almost fully by rural female teenagers receiving little compensation for long work hours. The remote locations of the factories partnered with little competition of other work and few opportunities for women in general, make possible the exploitation of this class of women.

Amateur Economy

In the section titled “Computers are not to blame,” Ross discusses the fact that digital media is not the only area where volunteer or “amateur economy” benefits big business. The practice of using free labor as a business model was adopted by the television industry back in the 1980s. When faced with loss of revenue from the competition of cable channels, networks started producing more game shows and reality television. The general public flocked to participate on many of these shows whether it was to win money on shows like “Who Want’s to be a Millionaire?” or to have their 15 minutes of fame on shows like “Big Brother”, however degrading some of the situations were. Networks quickly realized that these shows cost a fraction of what a scripted television show using union writers and actors cost, and these shows began to proliferate on the airwaves. Reality TV shows are so inexpensive to produce that most make their money back after the first showing of an episode. Ross also points out that anyone who watches these shows can see that there actually is a “script” of sorts. What is meant to seem completely spontaneous, is actually quite often practiced, carefully plotted and achieved with multiple takes. But the producers are able to keep from hiring writers by hiding behind the façade that their shows are “real” and there is no writing taking place. Unfortunately, professional actors and writers are the “biggest losers” in the amateur economy, losing jobs as fewer scripted shows are produced.

In the “amateur economy” of the digital age, amateur bloggers, reviewers and commentators work without the expectation of monetary payment. Like the networks and TV producers of reality shows, the websites reap all of the profits while the talent works for free.

In Ross’ argument where he is focusing on the digital media’s ability to “extract cheaper and discounted work from users and participants,” we can quite clearly see, in  the examples of “crowdsourcing”, “white collar/no collar interns”, and “reality TV”, the relationship to his argument.  By exploring the concept of “crowdsourcing”, we see that many people are tasked with smaller components related to a project and/or problem.  The work derived from these smaller components, are then compiled by a managing entity that is the only one who knows all of the various parts, to create the final desired outcome and/or solution.  In many instances, if at all, the compensation to the many participants is minuscule at best.  In the now higher popularized “white collar/no collar internships”, many companies exploit the free labor of their interns.  In most cases, interns receive no to little financial compensation, while being tasked with producing professional quality work for their employers.  In many fields now, these internships have seem to become the way to build a professional resume, garner experience, increase social/professional connections, in hopes of being able to find a position in a chosen field; particularly, in a field like media.  Education alone is no longer enough to transition from the academic to the professional spheres.  The rise in the popularity and diversity of “reality TV” shows, is another example of this in the field of media.  Many of the related fields to the production of television and film projects, use interns instead of established professionals (who are usually unionized and are guaranteed much higher, industry standardized wages).  It has become a way of increasing the profit margin, while/by cutting production costs (and in most cases, production value).  Also, these same people are aware that there is little to no job security related to this kind of work, which contributes to concept of “precarious work” environments.  These production companies have no contractual obligation to the staffers and they can be replaced at any time (usually with/by someone willing to do the same work and/or more, for less).  These productions do not utilize professional actors or writers.  Instead, they use “regular” people and the writers engineer situations and/or circumstances that generally lead conflict to be exploited for ratings and sound bites for promotion.  It is clear in these examples that digital media has indeed been able to “extract cheaper and discounted work from users and participants.”